The High Court dismissed most grounds in a judicial review of a foreshore licence for site investigations linked to the proposed Dublin Array offshore wind farm. It refused, at this stage, to dismiss two remaining challenges over cumulative environmental effects and a licence condition, and directed that those issues proceed to a further hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2023, Humphreys J. dismissed core grounds 1 to 9, along with four sub-issues and a project-identification sub-issue under core ground 10. The court did not decide the remaining challenges on their merits. It also did not quash the licence or make a final order on the applicants’ request for judicial review.
The applicants challenged a five-year licence granted to RWE Renewables Ireland Limited to carry out geotechnical and geophysical investigations and environmental and marine monitoring off Dublin and Wicklow. Their remaining arguments concern whether the Minister had to consider other projects with pending consent applications when assessing cumulative effects, and whether condition 31.13 adequately requires coordination between licence holders to prevent overlapping works.
The judgment said the proposed coordination requirement had called for steps to ensure that overlapping projects did not take place at the same time. But the licence condition required RWE to liaise with the Department and use its “best endeavours” to contact other licence holders. The judge said the opposing parties had not yet provided a fully convincing answer to the applicants’ concern that this wording might not achieve the stated objective. He left open whether the condition could be amended to address the issue.
The court refused the opposing parties’ applications to dismiss those two challenges at this stage or to limit them to declaratory relief. The judge said further submissions were needed on whether the court should decide the issues or refer one or both to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment did not determine whether such a reference would be made.
The licence had already been subject to an interlocutory stay in earlier proceedings. This judgment records that stay and the court’s directions for the next stage; it does not resolve the remaining challenges or determine the final status of the licence. A postscript says a later hearing on 10 July 2023 amended the treatment of one other project in the judgment’s project table, with reasons to be given in a later judgment.